Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

I dunno... "ability to" and "intent/willingness to" are 2 completely different things IMO. One might be willing to do so, under specific, and perhaps life-threatening, circumstances. But whether one has the ability to do so under any given circumstance is a completely different matter. And whether that's "necessary to do so", is yet another matter.

But I think the discussion relating to whether one is able or willing to, seems to be digressing from the premise that aikido, without atemi, is useless... Useless for what? Under what circumstances?

I think the short answer would be "it depends"... on the situation and the variables relevant to that situation.

I like what Dan R wrote... To me atemi is just another set of tools, which also provide a different avenue for study and expression. You don't have to use all the tools in your toolbox, and you wouldn't use the wrong tool for the job either. But knowing which tool to use and how to use it to do the job efficiently and effectively... helps, no?

Are you saying here that you have to "be able to" strike, or you have to actually strike? The way you worded it, I'm not completely sure. If the latter, I not only disagree, but the early BJJers proved that that can be incorrect too many times to count.

It appears again to me that I do a completely different art than some others who are "also doing Aikido." And I can guarantee from experience that it is effective without actually striking.

Mr. Novick, I am trying to say that you must be able to strike, as an integral part of the technique, if it is required to break down aites posture. Additonaly, if you must strike, you must be able to strike effectively.

I am not referring to grafting a percussive combat system onto aikido, but using the inherent movements of the technique to deliver percussive force.

Re: the many variations in aikido, I agree, very often it does appear that people practice something very different from what we are used to in our home dojo.

Mr. Novick, I wanted to make it clear that I agree that there are different methods of practice and they may have a different end goal then my own. The question of the value of an aikido without atemi is very hard for me to conceptualize, due to the combative assumptions and paradigms that form the center of my dojo's aikido practice. For you, it appears that the value of an aikido with atemi can be called into question, and I can accept that. I am not attempting to imply that anyone has found the one correct way to do a thing as complicated as aikido. Different strokes for different folks, after all.

hahahaha. Nice sarcasm, funny. I don't have much, only about 15 yrs with Aikido, Karate, TKD, 5 yrs with BJJ, Kickboxing, Boxing, and JKD. What I do see with the extra training is loopholes in Aikido atemi and the assumptions it has. If you really want to do atemi, learn the boxing movements of fast and slippery hits, or the power kicks of kickboxing, or the closing of body position by BJJ. Add that with the situations I've had to be in real life, it gave me a better understanding of what works and what doesn't work in Aikido...for me I should say. The fundamentals are important and so is the philosophy behind it, if you are weak in either it will show when coming up against these odds.

Dealing with skilled fighters takes a mixed approach to getting to Aikido, you have to know their language first before you can translate. But when I was in "real situations" where people aren't trained fighters the principles of randori and its strategies saved my life WITHOUT having to hurt people. Again it's the fear thing, you fear for your life so you over exert yourself. Being considerate to these people also helped me after...as in these people I've had to see again and appreciate the fact that I didn't beat them to a pulp! Something to think about...

i just got back from muay thai class so let me ask YOU a few questions since you are the expert after all, i think this will be very telling in that regard:

1. Aikido basic stance: how are you going to avoid/block/take a hard, fast low leg kick with a 60/40 front to back leg weight distribution ratio as it its supposed to be? How are you going to do the same with a kick to the ribs on the opposite side of your lead hand?

2. We dont practice jabs in Aikido. How do you deal with that given your vast expertise knowing full well that the first thing they tell you about throwing a punch is not to "trail" it like doing uke in Aikido, but snap it back quickly?

3. Push kick: you are WIDE open for that in Aikido

4. (i love this next one) Since atemi is not important/necessary for you in Aikido what happens when someone walks right up to you and grabs the back of your head in the Thai clinch? What "ushiro-neck" techniques do we have for that one?

Lets switch to BJJ since you do that as well:

1. Since there is no atemi, the BJJ practitioner can shoot for your legs without fear. How do you stop that? Dont even get me started on what would happen on the ground.

So what happens in randori when someone, let alone 8 guys, know any of this?

My point is that without atemi someone who is competent in a striking or grappling art/actually using their brains can find ways around "pure" Aikido very very easily. Atemi is the great equalizer imo. If someone knows you arent going to hit them then you better damn well be 100% with your timing and technique, so unless you can execute your techniques with 100% accuracy in practice every time with whoever you practice with, you need something to give you time to react which your opponent cannot, and that something is atemi. And im sorry but fighting some drunk guy at a bar who can barely stand is different than fighting someone who knows what they are doing.

I agree with you that the atemi the way it is practiced is a joke, however that doesnt mean its useless, that just means its not done properly because lets face it, the way Aikido is practiced in general is a joke without it.

When I train i try to think of myself as being a weakling of half my weight say around 45kg and my attacker is a monster of say 120kg and my feeling is the only thing that will negate the strength and power of such a monster is balance breaking (kuzushi) however it is achieved and once we do we are free to apply technique as is appropriate to the situation. In my younger days when i was on the dark side of the moon so to speak there were a few occasions where id been punched in the face and even kicked in the groin and in the heat of those moments didnt not have enough effect to stop me but the had the opposite effect. My Sensei is in her sixties and has no physical strength to speak of but renders my 90kg powerless time and time again with her balance breaking skill and i do use full resistance when she asks it of me so all i can say in my humble opinion is...

i just got back from muay thai class so let me ask YOU a few questions since you are the expert after all, i think this will be very telling in that regard:

1. Aikido basic stance: how are you going to avoid/block/take a hard, fast low leg kick with a 60/40 front to back leg weight distribution ratio as it its supposed to be? How are you going to do the same with a kick to the ribs on the opposite side of your lead hand?

2. We dont practice jabs in Aikido. How do you deal with that given your vast expertise knowing full well that the first thing they tell you about throwing a punch is not to "trail" it like doing uke in Aikido, but snap it back quickly?

3. Push kick: you are WIDE open for that in Aikido

4. (i love this next one) Since atemi is not important/necessary for you in Aikido what happens when someone walks right up to you and grabs the back of your head in the Thai clinch? What "ushiro-neck" techniques do we have for that one?

Lets switch to BJJ since you do that as well:

1. Since there is no atemi, the BJJ practitioner can shoot for your legs without fear. How do you stop that? Dont even get me started on what would happen on the ground.

So what happens in randori when someone, let alone 8 guys, know any of this?

My point is that without atemi someone who is competent in a striking or grappling art/actually using their brains can find ways around "pure" Aikido very very easily. Atemi is the great equalizer imo. If someone knows you arent going to hit them then you better damn well be 100% with your timing and technique, so unless you can execute your techniques with 100% accuracy in practice every time with whoever you practice with, you need something to give you time to react which your opponent cannot, and that something is atemi. And im sorry but fighting some drunk guy at a bar who can barely stand is different than fighting someone who knows what they are doing.

I agree with you that the atemi the way it is practiced is a joke, however that doesnt mean its useless, that just means its not done properly because lets face it, the way Aikido is practiced in general is a joke without it.

Good Post Andrew and in my limited 35 years of experiance in the Martial Arts The versions of Aikido that feature Atemi hold up rather well and those that don't Well...

Folks have been going round and round about this for decades and I like Sensei Ledyards post on the subject... To remove Atemi from Aikido is to risk losing it's identity as a valid Martial System but let's keep in mind the semantics here...Atemi has many flavors and if that flavor achieves the goal of unbalancing the attacker in (and this is important) in the real world and not just inside the Dojo then I would consider it Budo.

Andrew-
Muay Thai is fun! I don't think arguing these point by point is the direction I want to go in. The more I think about it, the more answers I get to everyone of them. There are thousands of techniques and responses to any attack no matter what style we are talking about! It's all a matter of what's in your arsenal to use and how you put them all together. It's also a matter of personal preference, maybe you are not so inclined to enter as fast as I like to. Maybe I like to come in close to do Aikido knowing that worst case scenario we go to the ground, in that case I use BJJ to get a pin. It's just a matter of transition.

Atemi, meaning striking in general is not BAD. I train in other arts that strike MUCH better. The strategy for striking is beyond the Aikido strategy with striking, using atemi in class for the point of body position and angles is also a good idea. But to train someone to do the same thing, with the same response in full practice, is a detriment to the student...they will practice and think this is how I will do it in real life. So when they practice full technique, I would teach them to continue through their technique without atemi. If you want GOOD atemi learn another art that is better at it, but don't call it Aikido. Call it for what it is, fighting not self-improvement.

If you're gonna go up against other MA'ists and use the Atemi you're learning in Aikido I'd feel really sorry for you because it will not work. You're better off using your thai movements. If anything adapt thai atemi to your Aikido. I am not the kind of person that will keep faulty technique or mind sets in my training, if it's not working get rid of it and find something that does.

Atemi, meaning striking in general is not BAD. I train in other arts that strike MUCH better. The strategy for striking is beyond the Aikido strategy with striking, using atemi in class for the point of body position and angles is also a good idea. But to train someone to do the same thing, with the same response in full practice, is a detriment to the student...they will practice and think this is how I will do it in real life. So when they practice full technique, I would teach them to continue through their technique without atemi. If you want GOOD atemi learn another art that is better at it, but don't call it Aikido. Call it for what it is, fighting not self-improvement.

Alexander, I disagree with your position here.

The question is not whether a system of striking is better then aikido atemi. Rather, the question should be "Is the way we strike in aikido in agreement with the rest of the way we move/think/philosophize in/about our aikido?". In other words, do we as aikido practictioners, strike in a way that is tactically, philosopically and mechanically in line with the rest of our aikido practice. Do we strike the best way we can for practicing aikido? And can that method of practice carry over into the world of combative effectiveness?

I believe that if we can answer those questions affirmatively, saying that any of our aikido movements have the potential to be martially effective atemi, that we have answered the question "Is aikido useless without atemi?" by stating that atemi and aikido are inherently linked, you can't have one without the other. In essence, aikido IS atemi, and atemi IS aikido. The caveat to that is that if you hold to that belief, as I do, you have to be sure that the way you train, the way you move, and the way you use atemi are all coming from the same movement/power template. You also have to be sure that your atemi has the ability to be thrown with effective power and can actually destabilize aite at any point in a technique.

As a side note, I don't think there is any such thing as a "better system", without further defining the parameters that the system is being trained for. Thai boxing is a better striking system for an mma bout then maybe Olympic TKD would be. That doesn't mean that thai boxing is the superior way to strike, just that it has advantages in some areas and environments that another art might not, and vice versa. There are no magic bullets, just hard training towards a goal.

a much more interesting question to ask - can atemi be done without irimi? ooohhhh trick question. I hate trick question. I hate myself.
I think I have to do some atemi waza on myself. wonder if i can sue myself for physical abuse. and would that consider as self-defense?

Andrew-
Muay Thai is fun! I don't think arguing these point by point is the direction I want to go in. The more I think about it, the more answers I get to everyone of them. There are thousands of techniques and responses to any attack no matter what style we are talking about! It's all a matter of what's in your arsenal to use and how you put them all together. It's also a matter of personal preference, maybe you are not so inclined to enter as fast as I like to. Maybe I like to come in close to do Aikido knowing that worst case scenario we go to the ground, in that case I use BJJ to get a pin. It's just a matter of transition.

Atemi, meaning striking in general is not BAD. I train in other arts that strike MUCH better. The strategy for striking is beyond the Aikido strategy with striking, using atemi in class for the point of body position and angles is also a good idea. But to train someone to do the same thing, with the same response in full practice, is a detriment to the student...they will practice and think this is how I will do it in real life. So when they practice full technique, I would teach them to continue through their technique without atemi. If you want GOOD atemi learn another art that is better at it, but don't call it Aikido. Call it for what it is, fighting not self-improvement.

If you're gonna go up against other MA'ists and use the Atemi you're learning in Aikido I'd feel really sorry for you because it will not work. You're better off using your thai movements. If anything adapt thai atemi to your Aikido. I am not the kind of person that will keep faulty technique or mind sets in my training, if it's not working get rid of it and find something that does.

-Alexander

See i think we are arguing different points now, but i agree with your last paragraph. The point i'm trying to make is that atemi *in general* isnt useless. If someone uses boxing or Muay Thai striking as atemi to set up Aikido, i'd argue that is very effective and useful atemi to employ in your Aikido no? And as i said before i largely agree that the atemi you learn *in Aikido* is kind of useless but i dont think that was ever the point of the thread to begin with.

Without a first strike whether it be proactive and/or a strictly defensive measure, aikido without proper hard atemi is useless. Now the real question remains; what is atemi? Is it a punch? Is it a distraction, as in the way O-Sensei taught. Or do you really need to give that attacker that first punch to the head to be really effective. In my mind, the answer is yes. This may make aikido a little more than boxing with flourish, but this is the conclusion I've come too.

Coming in a little late, so, here is my musing/thoughts

The shortest distance between two points in space is a straight line.

The quickest way to end a serious altercation is a KO or choke to unconsciousness.

In his auto-bio, Kancho Shioda said, in a serious altercation, 90% is atemi. He then proceeded to give some examples:

1) In Shanghai, as his opponent tried to kick him in a bar fight, he did a shomen-uchi to his leg and breaking it. Fight ends
2) In Tokyo, a drunkard and his buddy tried to pick on him due to his small size. Kancho pivoted and executed a sokumen-iriminage using his elbow to smash his opponent's nose and sending him to dreamland.

In these two examples, a single atemi-waza is all that he use to end the altercation. No kansetsu-waza, no fancy smancy stuff...

Now back to the OP initial post...

1) In serious altercation, I too believe 90% is atemi
2) In dojo, atemi is more towards causing distraction to ease the execution of technique on non-compliant uke. If uke is totally compliant, atemi is not necessary.
3) I love how the Shodokan people manage to incorporate atemi-waza safely into their Ran-dori practice. Learn from them.

3) I love how the Shodokan people manage to incorporate atemi-waza safely into their Ran-dori practice. Learn from them.

Tomiki Sensei adapted the shodokan atemi waza directly from Daito Ryu Aiki Ju Jutsu these techiques i have no doubt Shioda Sensei would of been familiar with being a pre war student of O'Sensei like Tomiki Sensei. While practicing them in Randori or Kata the goal is to break balance and then throw the whole body. When taking self defence into account they provide a great foundation for exploring the use of fist and elbow etc. against targets such as the nose, throat, temple, ribs and solar plexus etc.

I don't know that I fully agree with John B's comment that "...aikido is atemi,and atemi is aikido". But I agree with the thrust of his post, particularly this point which I feel bears repeating....

Quote:

...do we as aikido practictioners, strike in a way that is tactically, philosopically and mechanically in line with the rest of our aikido practice....that the way you train, the way you move, and the way you use atemi are all coming from the same movement/power template.

Which brings me to my point regarding adapting muay thai striking to aikido...

Quote:

Alexander Silva wrote:

If you're gonna go up against other MA'ists and use the Atemi you're learning in Aikido I'd feel really sorry for you because it will not work. You're better off using your thai movements. If anything adapt thai atemi to your Aikido. I am not the kind of person that will keep faulty technique or mind sets in my training, if it's not working get rid of it and find something that does.

A gentle caution about adapting techniques from other arts... just be sure that it is compatible with what you are adapting it to - strategically, tactically, philosophically and more importantly mechanically. Muay Thai *may* be an effective striking paradigm, but in terms of mechanics and power-sourcing, it's poles apart from good Aikido atemi. Otherwise, you might as well call it fighting...

OTOH, using other arts to inform your aikido and how to make your aikido better is an entirely different proposition.

I don't know that I fully agree with John B's comment that "...aikido is atemi,and atemi is aikido".

I dunno. When I demonstrate most techniques, I find myself having to point out how, in training, you need to "avoid" hitting with this part, then the next part, and then the next part after that, etc. -- pretty much in proper aikido you end up striking uke with nearly every striking point on your body that progresses through the connection with him, unless you "avoid" doing so. If the shape is right for the aiki -- the shape is ripe for the strike.

It's there at every stage. But while we just train NOT to strike while pointing out these dangers to our uke in our "technical" aikido training, it actually trains us on a more critical point -- to always move on and through the position of the strike, and not become attached to, or let our minds be stopped by, the incidental fact of the strike as a goal in itself. Mushin.

Er... I said I don't FULLY agree, not that I don't agree or totally disagree with the idea... for a number of reasons. Firstly, if it IS, then the wherefore the need to quote percentages? As in 75-90% of aikido is atemi. Why not just say ALL or even 100% of aikido IS atemi. I just think it would be more accurate to say that atemi is an intrinsic and integral aspect (whether one trains to do so implicitly or explicitly) of aikido, rather than the definitive it IS.

Sure, as I said in my first post, if you're close enough to touch, you're close enough to strike, or something to that effect. You can be as explicit or implicit as the audience demands, or as you feel necessary to illustrate a point. I certainly wouldn't show a rank beginner (or anyone under a certain age) any of these until they have, at least in my mind, attained a "certain level of appreciation, ability and maturity".

FWIW, IF I do use atemi to illustrate a point (which I *might* occasionally), it'll either be a strike to a "point" to effect a specific physiological response OR to break something - not that I have to or do....

I also feel that you have to be careful about what you use when from other arts. It's easy to ad hoc toss in a strike or two...but to maintain the proper body mechanics and have power in the right place at the right time for each of the sucsessive strikes takes more work. And to use it in a fashion that does not interupt your waza takes more work yet. And to be able to do it in practice with a non compliant uke takes even more work. And to not injure your uke at the same time...yup, you guessed it...more work...

Best,
Ron

Ron Tisdale
-----------------------
"The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of his behind."
St. Bonaventure (ca. 1221-1274)

I agree with all of the above. To let other arts inform what you do is a valuable practice, that prevents you from stagnating or from having a skewed view of reality. Simply tacking on stuff from other places is a potentially harmful practice, because you will have to mentally "shift gears" to access a skill or movement that is trained differently from your primary practice. That shifting of gears, no matter how quickly it happens, has the potential to create holes into which the opponent can attack.

Within my aikidostudy I study openings. Wether I can find them, both as being nage as as being uke, always. Some of my trainingpartners recognize what I am doing, some don't. The most comments I usualy get from those that don't.

i just got back from muay thai class so let me ask YOU a few questions since you are the expert after all, i think this will be very telling in that regard:

1. Aikido basic stance: how are you going to avoid/block/take a hard, fast low leg kick with a 60/40 front to back leg weight distribution ratio as it its supposed to be? How are you going to do the same with a kick to the ribs on the opposite side of your lead hand?

2. We dont practice jabs in Aikido. How do you deal with that given your vast expertise knowing full well that the first thing they tell you about throwing a punch is not to "trail" it like doing uke in Aikido, but snap it back quickly?

3. Push kick: you are WIDE open for that in Aikido

4. (i love this next one) Since atemi is not important/necessary for you in Aikido what happens when someone walks right up to you and grabs the back of your head in the Thai clinch? What "ushiro-neck" techniques do we have for that one?

Lets switch to BJJ since you do that as well:

1. Since there is no atemi, the BJJ practitioner can shoot for your legs without fear. How do you stop that? Dont even get me started on what would happen on the ground.

So what happens in randori when someone, let alone 8 guys, know any of this?

The question wasn't directed at me, but I'd like to use it as an opportunity to discuss something that is critically important for anyone who wants to train aikido in a practical way. There must be a paradigm shift away from the one-on-one empty-handed scenario. This is not the context in which the techniques that are practiced in aikido were devised. Remember: form follows function.

You weren't meant to snatch jabs out of the air and kote gaeshi the guy. Actually, the whole repertoire of a kick boxer/mma fighter would have been laughed at by the warrior class of Japan. These men carried weapons and used them. The techniques that we recognize as aikido today are complements to the use of weapons.

#1-3: cut them down with your katana, #4 (assuming they clinch without regarding your arms): stab them with your tanto.

The 8 on 1, I can't help with. If they have bad intentions, knife, sword, gun, or no, you're pretty much screwed.

Quote:

George Ledyard wrote:

I can guarantee you that, if you get to train with someone like Mike S, Dan H, Akuzawa Sensei or Rob, the top Systema folks, you will develop an understanding of what atemi was to the old Aikido greats. When you have an oponent with that kind of power you treat their capacity to strike you as if they had a sword or a knife. The whole, "I can take a punch mentality" goes away quickly.

On the whole one punch KO thing, this isn't that amazing. It's not strictly a power issue. One punch KOs are almost always the result of a fighter not seeing the strike, and the strike being well placed. But when the fight is on and you're charged up with adrenaline, it possible to eat absolutely brutal strikes and not even miss a beat.

Fists can be very dangerous, lethal in fact, but there are ways to protect yourself from punches and kicks, that are not available against an edged weapon.

To be fair, I haven't trained with any of the gentlemen that Ledyard mentioned (I really would like to train with Mike Sigman), and the only Systema that I've been exposed to in person was low level. I have seen video of Rob John sparring and his opponent seemed to survive!

What is not arguable is that a weapon magnifies the amount of damage that a blow can do. Depending on the weapon, it magnifies it to a point where the human body cannot take the punishment. In that case, stopping them from accessing their weapon, controlling the weapon hand, vacating the line of attack, and putting them face-down on the ground become very important.

Weapons change the engagement and render many empty-hand techniques much less effective.

-Michael
"Through aiki we can feel the mind of the enemy who comes to attack and are thus able to respond immediately." - M. Mochizuki